Questions!

Wooden Propeller Blades

I had a question regarding the use of wooden propellers in the IJAAF/IJNAF.

The standard painting methods seem to not apply to them, yet at the same time, a consistent color is also not clear...

I have not seen one with any warning strips either.

The use of them in trainers is clear, but also on early seaplanes. They range from a dark color, possibly stained wood, or perhaps even painted in the brownish color late war metal propellers were... But then at the same time, lighter colors exist, such as the K5Y with a grey looking one! In all cases, the metal leading edge is still clear, either lighter, or darker, but always distinct from the propeller color.

If painted, what colors would they be? Were there any standards for wooden propellers, and was the leading edge made from metal, or brass, like earlier aircraft propellers?

It's an interesting thought that I've not seen brought up before... Most modellers simply paint them the "standard" look, but I have seen some in nice wood, to simply black overall.

Any insight on this would be great, thank you for your time! -NJ

Answer:

From the Taisho era through the early Showa era, Japanese wooden aircraft propellers were crafted by laminating and gluing high-quality lumber—such as mahogany, walnut, and cherry—and then shaping the resulting blocks using tools like hand planes. Prominent manufacturers included companies like Yamaha, known for musical instrument production, established on October 12, 1897 as Nippon Gakki Seizo Co., Ltd. In 1921, at the request of the Imperial Japanese Army, began manufacturing wooden propellers for military aircraft, and in 1931, began manufacturing metal propellers.

The wooden propellers were covered with "urushi"*, and had metal tipping to protect them from damage from rain, pebbles, and runway debris. 

The attached photograph shows the scene of propeller manufacturing at the factory of Nippon Gakki Seizo K.K. (now Yamaha Corporation) in Hamamatsu City, Shizuoka Prefecture, around 1921. On the left, workbenches are lined up, and one can see artisans carving propeller shapes out of stacked wooden boards. In the background on the right, men in business suits and Army personnel are observing the work.

Nippon Gakki began manufacturing propellers in March 1921. Why did a company that made musical instruments come to produce equipment for military aircraft? The answer lies in the propeller manufacturing methods of that era. Propellers at the time were made of wood; creating them required artisanal skill to glue together hard, difficult-to-work boards—stacked at an angle to match the propeller's shape and then carve them down using a hand plane. Consequently, Nippon Gakki, which possessed advanced woodworking expertise gained from manufacturing wooden organs and pianos, was ideally suited to produce aircraft propellers.

A propeller manufactured by "Nippon Gakki" from Yamaha's official site.

An inscription on the side reads: "Manufactured by Nippon Gakki Co., Ltd., November 1925." Serial No. 155; Material: Walnut.

The propeller of a Type 13 training seaplane or Yokosuka K1Y.

A propeller attached to an Army engine used for training purposes.

A wooden propeller for the Navy's Type 90 Crew Trainer or Mitsubishi K3M "Pine". It measures 2,750 mm in total length and weighing 17.04 kg.

IJNAF propellers and struts from the collection of Kojima-san.

The propellers of the trainers.

Initially the propellers of the Tachikawa Ki-9 "Spruce" and the Yokosuka/Kawanishi K5Y "Willow" were made from wood with metal tipping. Note the interesting and quite unusual propeller on this "Willow".

The propeller of this K5Y2 seaplane is closer to the standard dark brown seen in the previous photos.

The propeller and the skeleton remains of a K5Y at the "Tsukuba Kaigun Kokutai Kinenkan"

The propeller of the sole complete "Willow" survivor in Indonesia. I'm not sure if the propeller is original though.

Initially the propellers of the Tachikawa Ki-9 "Spruce" and the Tachikawa Ki-17 "Cedar" were made of wood with metal tipping similar to the propeller of the "Willow". But very soon they were treated to the "case hardening" or "encapsulated" method. This was devised by the German company Schwarz during the late Taisho and early Showa periods; to prevent damage from pebbles, ice, and the like, the propeller surface is encased in a celluloid coating reinforced with wire mesh. The wire mesh consists of 0.2mm-diameter brass wire, and the coating is a cellulose nitrate-based finish approximately 1mm thick. Additionally, a 0.5mm-thick brass strip—known as a "tipping"—is attached to the leading edge of the blade using wood screws or nails.

The propeller of this Ki-9 Koh in the attached photo could be an early wooden example without the "case hardening".

On the other hand, the propeller of this Tachikawa Ki-9 Otsu has been most probably "case hardened". Note the single white band on the edge of each tip.

Another "Spruce" propeller, this time with two white bands.

As can be seen in this "Spruce" photo, at some point, the metal tipping was discarded.

A photo of a Tachikawa Ki-17 "Cedar" with the propeller lacking tipping.

In this color (not colorized) photo of a "Spruce" that served with the Korean Air Force after the end of WWII, the propeller has most probably been repainted with the same paint used for the top surface camouflage. Note the lack of tipping.

A "Spruce" propeller still exists and is displayed in Japan, but some sources indicate it has been repainted, so the color seen in the photo is not the original one.

Some Japanese sources mention that the color of the "Spruce" propeller was either beige or light green depending on the celluloid coating.

HTH

*"Urushi" refers to the sap collected from the deciduous tall tree of the Anacardiaceae family, Toxicodendron vernicifluum (Urushi, scientific name: Toxicodendron vernicifluum), found in Japan, China, and the Korean Peninsula is a natural resin paint and adhesive primarily composed of urushiol. In addition, in Southeast Asia such as Vietnam, Myanmar, and Bhutan, there are natural resins commonly called lacquer, though their compositions and uses differ. Crafts made from lacquer are called lacquerware, and especially Japanese lacquerware, due to its high quality.

The traditional colors of lacquer as a paint are black and vermilion; black is used as pigments such as iron oxide powder and soot, while vermilion lacquer uses pigments such as bendo and cinnabar. It is also sometimes done using black and vermilion lacquer to distinguish the coat.

The 14 Sentai "Sally" that demands correction!

Four years ago ICM, with ARAWASI help, released the beautiful Mitsubishi Ki-21 "Sally" kit and everybody was thrilled and very happy. That is until...some modellers realized it was a Model 1 and that most of them were overall gray. Oh, the mysery! Little chance to show off and make squiggles with my expensive airbrush for camo!!!! Buhuhu... 

Rather than waiting for ICM to issue a Model 2 kit featuring numerous interesting camouflage and tail marking choices, there’s been a pursuit to discover "interesting" (i.e. highly camouflaged) Model 1 "Sallys" and push the matter, sometimes resulting in historical inaccuracies.

And so, the opportunity for this small piece came when I recently saw photos, splashed all over the net, of an absolutely beautiful model from a friend and a very respected Japanese modeller that is unfortunately historically inaccurate. I definitely wouldn't object to the occasional modeller who got the kit and had fun with it; I'm not out there looking to correct the work of modellers - I'd rather not be part of the "history police." However, when a well-regarded and fairly renowned modeller, recognized for creating highly precise models, produces an inaccurate one, I feel compelled to express my concerns before others begin to replicate his model.

Here goes...

There were two "Sally" Models. Model 1 had Nakajima Ha-5 engines, and Model 2 had bigger and more powerful Mitsubishi Ha-101 engines. In Model 1, the engines were fairly small, and half of the wheels were hanging from the nacelles. The Ha-101 engines were bigger and required equally larger nacelles, and the landing gear was enclosed with doors. Check the illustration below to see these differences in the engine, nacelle, and wheel areas.

Top, Mitsubishi Ki-21 Model 1 Otsu.

Bottom, Mitsubishi Ki-21 Model 2 Ko.

The illustrations are from Maru Mechanic #29 and although not bad at all, there are issues with the non-existent windows between the wing root and the fuselage door. But more importantly, note the differences between the two models in the engine, nacelle, wheel area.

As we described for the first time in our Eagle Eye #3 publication, according to the official unit history, the 14th Sentai relocated back to Japan in April 1942, where they exchanged their old Model 1 bombers for new Model 2s and trained for about a month. According to veteran recollections, the tail marking the unit became famous during the Papua/New Guinea campaign was adopted while in Japan, i.e. the unit used a different tail marking on their Model 1s. Then the unit moved to Kuala Ketil in central Malaya, where they spent the rainy season in Burma training with their new bombers, now having 27 (36) bombers in its strength. In other words, the unit DID NOT operate any Model 1s after April 1942. There are no photos or records indicating it had any. Yet, illustrations have appeared that show 14th Sentai Model 1s in the P/NG theater.

This photo detail taken from a US bomber during a November 2, 1943, raid against Rabaul, features a 14 Sentai 3rd Chutai "Sally" and a second one belonging to the 81 Sentai under a camouflage net. This has frequently been cited as evidence of a Model 1 14 Sentai "Sally."

Many who are not familiar with the differences between Model 1 and Model 2 "Sallys" overlook the wheel doors indicated by the red arrow. These doors confirm that this is a Model 2 "Sally"; definitely NOT a Model 1.

"Rising decals" has included decals of this particular "Sally" in its RD72105 set. As you can see it depicts a Model 1, which is inaccurate. Furthermore, the vast majority of 14 Sentai "Sallys" had the individual aircraft number painted at the bottom of the rudder.

Well-known, very highly regarded and respected (and a friend) aviation historian Michael Claringbould has included 14 Sentai "Sally" illustrations in one of his books. The books are top notch and VERY highly recommended but the artwork is occasionally not on par with the text. The attached illustration shows a misleading and incorrect combination of Model 1 fuselage with a Model 2 Otsu turret. I reached out to Michael and inquired about his source for Model 1 14 Sentai "Sallys," and he referred to the above photo in Rabaul.

This 14 Sentai "Sally" illustration far more accurately showcases the way the unit's aircraft looked when operated in the P/NG theater. There are some issues with the fuselage windows (the artist was probably inspired by the MM illustration) and again the aircraft misses the individual aircraft number at the bottom of the rudder. 

I really wish modellers could wait until ICM releases their Model 2 "Sally." And let's not forget there is a war going on there in Ukraine, and the ICM headquarters was bombed, not by innocuous requests but with actual bombs.

Half-and-half China Zeros - follow up

Last Friday, 13, I posted the "Half-and-half China Zeros, The "Third Way"" on our Facebook page and there was a heated debate in the comments. Allow me to recap and evaluate the various hypotheses regarding these Zeros, some put forward by the commentators. A big shout-out to our friend Shawn Lydic whose passion, knowledge and dedication I’m sure we all respect and appreciate even if we don’t always agree on everything.

So, in Friday’s post I mentioned that reasons that have been put forward at various times for the “half-and-half Zeros” include experiments with colors and the application of primer on the front section only. Although entirely plausible, these hypotheses rely on no material evidence to corroborate these claims. They are only attempts to explain a phenomenon (“it could be this or that or something else”). There are no relics, official manufacturer reports, veteran memoirs or other evidence to confirm either of the two explanations. It doesn't mean they are not valid, it's just that they are only conjectures.

The other hypothesis was put forward by Asano-san and was supported by Shawn Lydic in Friday’s comments. The suggestion is that the repeated shielding of the aircraft's most delicate areas, such as the cockpit and the engine, with tarpaulins led to an uneven fading of the color across the other top surfaces. Unlike the previously mentioned explanations, this hypothesis relies on photographic material that may or may not prove its validity. Asano-san clearly explained that the same photos in different publications with less contrast, suggest that the fading was not excessive as has been depicted in artwork and that the lines between the two different “shades” are not “sharp edged and perfect”.

The "tarpaulin proposal" has several advantages but also presents numerous challenges. To begin with, as you can see in the attached photos

various kinds of tarpaulin were used by the IJNAF to protect the aircraft, which means we would expect to see Zeros with a variety of fading patterns. Not to mention that many other IJNAF aircraft types were protected by tarpaulins but do not show any paint differences. Another strong argument is that no Zeros on other fronts show this different pattern. Half-and-half Zeros could be found only in China. Although we can’t exclude completely the fact that such aircraft may have existed, there is simply no photographic evidence to support this claim.

But note the port wingtip of this Zero. Why the difference? Is it a replacement part or something else is going on here?

I would also like to put forward the fact that aircraft carrier based Zeros also used tarps to protect them from the elements

but, again, we have no photos of half-and-half carrier based Zeros. We don’t even have half-and-half later type Zeros or even half-and-half green-top Zeros during the last years of the war when we know the paint quality had degraded and tarps were still in use. In other words, the locality and the limited range of the phenomenon suggest that it is not a naturally occurring and widespread one.

On top of that, photos included in Sakai Saburo's "Ozora no Samurai - The photo story of Japan's greatest living Zero fighter" show clear demarkation and sharp edges.

Shawn mentioned in some of his comments that the pilot and ground crew members when they got in contact with these areas they naturally buffeted the paint and therefore we see this contrast between the buffeted and un-buffeted areas. Although again plausible, this suggestion cannot be supported by the fact that almost the whole inner half of the wing looks to be darker than the rest (see again top photo) and Shawn very strongly explained that the ground crews did not step on these areas. In other words, we would expect only the front edge of the wing to have been buffeted. Also, the area behind the canopy is also suspicious since crews rarely touched it. In any case, if this was a common occurrence, we would expect to see more Zero photos with buffeted areas around the cockpit, which is not the case.

One of my all time favorite Zero photos. One that gives and keeps on giving. Why the rear of "R3-116" look like that? Compare it with "R3-132" in the background.

Another explanation that Shawn mentioned in a comment is that perhaps the rear part of the fuselage was a replacement from a different aircraft. Again, this suggestion cannot be thrown out of the window without further consideration since indeed the demarcation line between the front and rear “fading” falls exactly on the part where the front and rear fuselage could be separated for transportation etc. But, unfortunately, this suggestion cannot account for the color differences on the wing areas since the wing could not be separated on the demarcation line.

Is "3-176" a half-and-half Zero? Comparing it with the top photo, it looks like it could be one. Note the demarcation lines. Why is the fuselage line in different position than the other half-and-half Zeros?

On Friday, I put forward another hypothesis that was relayed to me by a Japanese researcher, that the front of these Zeros was a testbed for some short of anti-slippery application, either something in the paint or a top coat. Regrettably some commentators rushed to fixate on the “top coat” wording and completely or partially dismissed this suggestion. Some suggested that if there was a “top coat” it would have been already found on the surviving relics. First of all, I’m not sure if anyone has ever checked their “surviving relics” to see if the paint had any anti-slippery properties and second, AFAIK unfortunately no relics have survived of these half-and-half Zeros based in China; so I fail to understand what relics they refer to. Furthermore, I can’t even imagine how poor our Japanese aviation history would be if we relied exclusively on relics. But I guess that’s just me.

Contrary to this rather negative approach, Jacek Makarewicz, posted the following more constructive comment, which made this suggestion even more plausible:　

“The anti-skid layer is definitely the most logical justification for the Zero's two-tone color scheme. But only in combination with the type of exhaust manifold used. In early versions of the A6M, exhaust gases were directed OVER the wing, and because the engine “spat oil,” the area around the wings near the fuselage and the sides of the fuselage near the cockpit were “more than slippery,” which was dangerous for the pilot and maintenance personnel. Therefore, paint with an “anti-slip additive” was used in these areas. The exhaust was quickly redesigned and the exhaust gases were directed UNDER the wing, thus cleverly solving the problem and completely removing the “anti-slip additive” from use.”

I would also like to add that contrary to what was relayed to me, an official adaptation of such an “anti-slippery” coat or addition to the paint to cover the whole of the aircraft, would make areas not in need of such properties covered with such paint, like the wing under surfaces or the tail of the aircraft. And the whole exercise would end up being a waste of resources. 

In conclusion, the "anti-slippery suggestion" is the only one that has the potential to receive some official confirmation and perhaps become a theory (in the scientific sense) IF we ever see an article by Wataki-san explaining in great detail exactly who said what or perhaps some other kind of evidence that would support this claim.  (and, yes, in case you didn't get it, this is a call for him or other Japanese researchers to share with us their knowledge) For the moment, for me, it is just another hypothesis like all the previous ones and I leave it to our readers to judge if “someone is pulling someone's chain” (as someone exclaimed in the comments) or not.

Model Commentary #2f - Red IFFs & seeing color in monochrome photos.

The last time we posted a "Model Commentary" was many years ago, but since we currently revisit the subject on our Facebook page, here's a new one on a rather controversial subject.

All Japanese published sources agree that the official order to apply Identification Friendly or Foe (IFF) stripes on the wing leading edges of the Japanese aircraft, was given on October 5, 1942. The exact reason is not specified but I believe that the main motive was to make the aircraft easily identifiable when approaching head-on when the hinomaru were not clearly visible. Is that aircraft friendly and attempting to land on our airfield or aircraft carrier or is it enemy and has ill intent?

The official orders categorically state that camouflaged aircraft should have the IFF stripes in yellow and the aircraft without camouflage in yellow or RED. While the existence of red IFFs is a subject that is not put to debate in Japan, some non-Japanese aviation historians and researchers, completely ignoring the official regulations, have over the years insisted that no red IFF stripes were applied on Japanese aircraft; never, ever.

No color photos have ever surfaced that could provide concrete proof of the existence of red IFFs and therefore all researchers and historians are left with is the subjective analysis of monochrome photos.

Here are the points non-believers in red IFFs make and my answers:

1. there are very few aircraft whose IFFs could be interpreted as red. Why there aren't more?

Answer: As mentioned in the previous post, when the red paint was tested on the field it was quickly found out that it didn't stand out during nighttime. Furthermore, the vast majority of Japanese aircraft, especially IJAAF, had already received camouflage and in the case of IJNAF only a few months after the IFF order was given, from 1943, started receiving camouflage as well (the Zeros based in Rabaul for example. Nells, Bettys, Vals and Kates were already flying with camouflage from the beginning of the Pacific War). Only some units based in Japan, like aviation schools, were without.

2. If the IFFs look red in a photo then the film must be panchromatic.

Answer: The classic tired argument. To begin with, panchromatic films were relatively popular around the world until the mid-30s because they were cheaper than the newly developed orthochromatic. After that, orthochromatic films were priced similarly and became more common and the production of panchromatic was largely discontinued. According to one Japanese source, panchromatic films were never really popular in Japan but, even ignoring this last bit for a moment, and reversing argument#1, IF it was popular why aren't there many more photos of Japanese aircraft with dark IFF stripes that could be attributed to panchromatic film? As a matter of fact, personally, I know of NO photos of Japanese aircraft proven to have been taken with panchromatic film. In a nutshell, I could accept photos of weird-looking Japanese aircraft in the early 30s that could be attributed to panchromatic film being at play but, in my opinion, it is unlikely to see photos developed from panchromatic films in the 40s. 

3. Photography and weather conditions. "Maybe a small cloud was right above the IFF stripe when the photo was taken and therefore it looks darker".

Answer: This is actually a fairly valid argument (the weather conditions, not the small cloud part) as we will see, but it doesn't explain everything.

4. Photo process and publishing quality.

Answer: Yes, this is the only really valid argument, in my opinion.

5. But by far the most common explanation for the dark IFFs in photos is that “they were painted in a darker yellow”.

Answer: Setting aside my reservations and objections, the very latest publication "Kawasaki Ki-61-II Kai Hien 6117 Uncovered" includes the best copy of the “Japan Aircraft Standard No. 8609” a.k.a. Kariki 117. In it, three yellows are included: 

4.1 is the darkest and was “used for identification stripes in leading edges of Navy aircraft wings, as overall color on Navy training and experimental aircraft”.

4.2 is a mustardy yellow that was “used for handles on levers to open/close Navy aircraft radiation shutters and for painting markings”, and finally

4.3 is a brownish yellow that was “used for Army training aircraft”

There are no other yellow or orange colors. So, which is this “darker yellow” color? Either the Army planes had IFFs painted with the darker Navy color, if we were to believe such nonsense, or there was an unspecified different darker yellow paint not included in the Kariki. Or...maybe...you know, could they actually be red?

    

So, let's see what's going on. I will not tire you explaining the difficulties of trying to see color in black&white photos but keeping in mind official regulations and using color photos as valuable help, we can become pretty proficient in interpreting our subject of interest. For example, the official IJNAF regulations and widespread practice was to camouflage the top surfaces of most WWII IJNAF aircraft with green paint. So, when you see a b/w photo of a Model 52 Zero with dark top surfaces, the safest conclusion is that the actual color was green, not brown or purple. Nevertheless, depending on the angle the photo was taken or the weather conditions, variations and abnormalities are not uncommon. It is not rare hinomaru known to be definitely red to look almost white because, for example, the metal was shining under the bright sun. But even more important is to keep in mind the process the photo was put through until you come to see it in the book in your hands. From printing from the original film to reprinting to scanning to adjustment, and finally, to publishing to paper, variations are to be expected from one book to another, both featuring the same photo. In other words, in one publication the photo might look brighter and clearer, and in another, exactly the same photo, might look darker. This has nothing to do with orthochromatic or panchromatic films. Therefore it's very important to know the provenance of the photo. Is it a first print from an original film? When was the book published? Before the 80s with different technology than it's available today? And many more similar factors. Due to technology limitations, publishers before the age of computers and photoshop, often opted to publish bright photos with plenty of shadows and contrast to make them stand out in the books. Modelers with only a passing interest in Japanese aircraft, find a photo on the net, sometimes scanned from a book, often of very poor quality and spend hours trying to identify color in vain. There is also a strong desire to find unusual modeling subjects and some speculations and suggestions are uncritically accepted. On the other end of the spectrum, rigid conformity is accepted as the norm when in reality there wasn't actually one as testified by the numerous variations and exceptions. 

Even so, getting back to the IFFs and before we start seeing red IFFs everywhere, here's my thought process when analyzing b/w photos. In many photos, the cameraman is standing in front of the aircraft and the IFF part that's under the wing looks dark. First of all, if the top part of the IFF stripe is visible and is very bright, then there is a very high possibility that it's yellow. If there are more photos of the same aircraft from different angles, these would help a lot. Most importantly if there is a photo of an aircraft taken from above then we can have a very clear view of the IFFs and we can compare them with the hinomaru on the top surfaces. Then, I like to compare the same photo as it appears in different publications and especially dig into more current releases that feature high-quality, clearer versions of the photo. Next up, is trying to figure out when the photo was taken. As mentioned above the yellow or red options were settled to yellow when the red was deemed impractical. Therefore, if a “Hayabusa” photo was taken in 1944 or 45, it is unlikely that the IFF was red even though it may look darker. If the photo was taken in 1942 or early 43, around the time the official order was given, it's more plausible. And last but not least, I examine carefully who says that they are red. Is the author a trustworthy historian? Can I conclude from his writing that he has seen/handled the original photo or does he only have a copy of a copy and just repeats what others have said before?

In conclusion, my opinion is that a relatively very small number of uncamouflaged Japanese Army and Navy aircraft received red IFFs during the months after the order was given. Until maybe mid-1943. They are relatively rare and unique like so many other Japanese aircraft with unusual camouflage, hinomaru or personal markings. Without indisputable proof, the arguments and counter-arguments are only opinions that everyone is free to accept. So, build your specific Japanese aircraft model with yellow IFFs or choose red instead. And if anyone comes over preaching that they weren't really red, tell them to stick their panchromatic film up their...camera. 

Below are some photos that showcase the above as well as some of the most well-known (and less so) photos of Japanese aircraft with purportedly red IFFS.

Let's start with a classic example of erroneous photo interpretation that has led to grossly inaccurate illustrations and models. The attached photo was first featured in the April 1944 issue of the Japanese magazine "Koku Asahi". I repeat the date: 1944.

Probably the availability of only this version of the photo led pioneer Japanese aviation historian Don Thorpe to mention in his classic "Japanese Army Air Force Camouflage and Markings World War II" published in 1968, "As a quick identification feature, most aircraft assigned to Home or Area Defense duties carried white bands, or bandages, upon the fuselage, or around the wings, surmounted by the Hinomaru. Although these bands were usually white, occasionally yellow was used, particularly by cadre aircraft or instructor Chutais, denoting their primary duties as training aircraft."

This has led many illustrators and subsequently modelers to depict the "Shoki" of the 47th Sentai with yellow bands. (check Model Commentary #1 for more about these defense bands).

Various explanations have been put forward as to why the bands look darker in the previous photo. Here's another one. In the top photo from Dai Nippon Kaiga's "SHOKI FIGHTER GROUP (A Pictorial History of the 70th Sentai, the Tokyo's Defenders)", the band looks darker...

...but in the bottom photo featuring the same aircraft the band looks clearly white. It's because of the angle the first photo was taken that makes the white look darker when juxtapositioned to the metal of the aircraft. That is exactly why more and better photos need to be examined before coming to conclusions when we try to see color in b&w photos. 

Let's see now the photos featuring aircraft with "red" IFFs.

"Model Art#779 / Profile#5" by Model Art and other publications, feature photos of a "Shoki", s/n1125, that has crash-landed. 

All Japanese publications without exception mention that the IFFs are red, not yellow. Although the attached photo was taken in the spring of 1944, the tail marking indicating that it originally belonged to the 87 Sentai is partially gone. At the time of the accident, the unit was already in Sumatra so, in all probability, this was an aircraft left behind by the unit that was used for training purposes.

The "Shoki" publication by DNK, entitled "SHOKI FIGHTER GROUP 2 (The Brief History of Akeno Army Flying School)" features a most interesting photo never seen in other publications. A rather unusual "Shoki" is featured and the IFFs clearly look red. 

Not only the part seen under the wing but also on the top of the wing. Compare them with the red warning stripes on the propeller blades. Unfortunately, the publication confusingly claims that they are yellow because they were "developed to look like this" whatever this is supposed to mean. 

Here's yet another "Shoki" photo featured in various publications. The scan is from Maru Mechanic. 

The serial number of the aircraft is "1231" and all Japanese publications that mention them say that the IFFs are red. Note that the IFF on the port wing looks red not only on the undersides but also on the wheel cover that is directly lit by the sunlight. Also, compare the IFFs with the yellow warning stripes on the propeller blades. 

This leads us to this classic photo from the NASM archive. The well-known "Shoki" of ace 1Lt Wakamatsu of the 85th Sentai, photographed in China. Serial number of this aircraft is #1134.

While the NASM photo is rather dark, very high-quality versions of the photo are available in Japanese publications and I was fortunate last weekend to see in my own eyes a crystal-clear print of the same photo. Here is a scan from the ancient FAOW.

In all versions of the photo, the IFFs are very interesting. A close-up reveals that the part of the IFF on the very leading edges of the wing has peeled off indicating a quite old aircraft. The IFF part seen on the wing undersurfaces looks as dark as the hinomaru. But as if this was not enough, the part of the IFF on the wheel covers, exposed to direct sunlight, is also very dark. As with previous photos, compare the IFFs with the yellow bands on the propeller. On top of this, the serial number of this aircraft indicates that it was built at about the same time the previous "Shoki" with the red stripes was produced. To further support the red IFFs claim, this photo was taken in 1943, exact date unknown, when the unit was using this particular tail marking. From 1944 the unit used a different marking. 

Taking all into consideration, we have at least two "Shoki" fighters from the same unit, with the same tail marking with neighboring serial numbers with dark IFFs. An elderly Japanese researcher I talked to last Saturday, started mentioning "orthochromatic and panchromatic films" when I pointed out the IFFs that in my opinion look red. Well, what can you do... 

But red IFFs have been appearing even in earlier fighter types than Ki-44s. Attached is a photo from FAOW#29, featuring a Nakajima Ki-27 "Nate" of the 244 Sentai with very thick red IFFS. 

This is not the only photo of 244 Sentai "Nates" with red IFFS.

Here are two more photos of a different 244 Sentai "Nate" having a mishap. Note the very early tail marking of the unit. Photos from the Arawasi collection. 

Not only fighters but other types of aircraft had red IFFS. Attached is a photo from the Arawasi collection that we present for the very first time, with a Tachikawa Ki-36 "Ida" (not Ki-55 trainer) with IFFs definitely darker and similar to the very unusual underwing hinomaru with a white surround. 

As for IJNAF aircraft, the most well-known is the controversial Kasumigaura Zero with the red IFFs we discussed here. Again note that this photo was taken from above and the IFFs are not in the shade.

I left for last the weirdest of all. This particular Kawanishi N1K "Shiden" has been puzzling researchers for ages. The top three photos are from various Japanese publications (FAOW#53 & Model Art#587), and the bottom is from the Arawasi Collection. 

Note the difference in the tonality of all the photos. At first glance, the top two photos look very dark and is easy to shout "panchromatic film!" But the bottom image, scanned from a first print of the photo (not from a book or a reprint of a reprint) looks definitely more tonally balanced.

Apart from the weird-looking cowling area, this particular aircraft looks like having red IFFs even though it has green top camouflage. Even more weird is the fact that the IFFs cover the front part of the wheel covers. As you probably remember in an earlier post, we showed that Kawanishi opted for very narrow IFFs that didn't reach the landing gear covers. One explanation for this bizarre aircraft is that it was originally uncamouflaged when it received the red IFFs and in these photos is seen sporting its newly-applied camo.

IJAAF & IJNAF wrecked aircraft - Kawasaki Ki-61 "Hien" - 19 & 55 Sentai - References & Modelling

I was not able to find good and accurate illustrations of any of those 19 Sentai "Hien" at Clark Field we saw in the previous post. 

The only one who has released accurate decals in 1/48 or any other scale for those aircraft, is Rising Decals in their "Emperor's Eagles Pt. 1" set.

The set includes decals for the aircraft with the tail marking we identified as "88" with the yellow tail top.

Peter Scott in his "Emblems of the Rising Sun" (that should not be missing from the library of any Japanese aviation fan) includes an illustration of one of the "Hien" found at Clark Field. Unfortunately, he failed to note that ALL 19 Sentai aircraft had an individual number painted on the rudder (with only one exception as we'll see later). 

While he's correct in the caption that the wheel covers were discarded to save weight, in all the photos of the previous post, the propeller blades of all aircraft did have warning stripes.

We need to turn our attention to the "0" "Hien" we saw in the previous post that was photographed at Okinawa, not the Philippines (see more, here).

Note that in this illustration credited to none other than Giuseppe Picarella, the 19 Sentai tail marking, and the spinner are shown as yellow and the fuselage bands are white and yellow.

Personally, I don't agree with this interpretation. As you can see in the photo above, the spinner is clearly brown, not yellow, the tail marking is also clearly red, not yellow (if it was yellow it wouldn't need a white surround!) and the front fuselage band is probably just dirty not yellow. If you look more closely, you'll be able to notice the previously applied blotches (green probably) camouflage having been overpainted by a top brown (I think) coat. Or they could be just scratches from the way the US personnel handled the plane. Take your pick.

As you can see in the image below, for those who can read Japanese, FAOW#17 (1989) has inaccurately identified the location as Clark Field.

An illustration of a 19 Sentai "Hien" is also included but fails to mention/show the individual number on the rudder. 

In my eyes, the unit marking is way too thin and too intricately applied, making it highly unlikely to have been painted by the average ground crew member; more likely by a true artist. Also, I have not found any photos of 19 Sentai aircraft in overall NMF without camo.

Interestingly FAOW #17 also includes this b/w illustration and the caption mentions "Philippines, Angeles airfield".

It is an accurate depiction based on this photo from the Japanese version of the "Japanese Army Airforce Fighter Units and their Aces" by Hata & Izawa. 

The photo caption doesn't mention the location but it is definitely not the Philippines, though. More likely either Japan or Taiwan.

Model Art #733 or Profile #1 (2007) also inaccurately mentions Clark Field instead of Okinawa. 

The "0" "Hien" is depicted in top green camo but the previously applied 55 Sentai marking on the rudder is not visible making it look like an aircraft that always belonged to the 19 Sentai.

The special issue by "MARU" (2017) unfortunately agrees with the previous Japanese publications but also includes an illustration of a 19 Sentai "Hien" with yellow tail marking and a "53" on the tail. 

I have not seen any photos of such aircraft and the publication doesn't include one. The caption mentions again the Angeles Airfield in the Philippines, but a similar illustration (again without any accompanying photos) is featured in Model Art#451, explaining that "Hien" "53" was flown by 2nd Lt. Watanabe Kuniomi. Watanabe took off on April 22,1945, on a suicide mission from Yilan air base in Taiwan (not the Philippines) and attacked U.S. forces in Kadena Bay with a 100-kilogram bomb attached to his "Tony". He is credited as having hit a large ship near the Kerama Islands.

The only Japanese publication that has got it right, is Koku Fan Illustrated #42 (1988) which correctly mentions Okinawa. 

I wonder what happened since then and how Okinawa became Clark Field...

Let's see kits now.

The old Arii kit in 1/48, includes decals for one 19 Sentai "Tony" but no number. 

It could be useful if you want to depict the classic aircraft of the previous post with the tail number overpainted.

The Fine Molds kit FP24 in 1/72 includes decals for one 19 Sentai "Tony" but the unit marking is too thin and too elaborate, lacking a tail number. 

It mentions that it depicts an aircraft when the unit was based in Kameyama but I have not seen any photos to confirm it.

The Tamiya kit #60789 in 1/72 came out in 2018 and includes decals for the "Yontan Tony". 

As elsewhere, it is wrongly identified as based in the Philippines. I suppose this detail is not really important to the majority of modellers, unless they do a theme like "Okinawa Air War" or something like that. Interestingly the decal set includes the unit marking in red and yellow (Picarella influence?), the latter with the unnecessary white surround. Green is suggested for the top camo but in the color illustration featured on the side of the kit, the previously applied 55 Sentai marking is not visible leading to historically not entirely accurate models.

Before we leave the 19 Sentai "Tonys" at Clark Field and move to the next aircraft type, let's turn our attention to this 19 Sentai photo to note and add a couple things 55 Sentai related. Keep in mind that the location of this photo is currently unknown.

The "Hien" below have been positively identified as belonging to the 55 Sentai. 

Note the kanji on the tail, one of them having it in a circle.

If you take a closer look at the tail of the 19 Sentai "Tony" in the photo further above, you will notice what looks like a kanji within a circle behind the 19 Sentai tail marking. 

I think it's a suggestion that it was another plane that originally belonged to the 55th and was passed on to the 19th.

Also, although a 19 Sentai plane that, as we mentioned before, should always have a number on the rudder, this one doesn't have one. But note that the rudder is a replacement without the camo pattern of the rest of the aircraft.

This is a photo of one (or two) more 55 Sentai "Tonys". 

You can see the earlier 55 Sentai marking behind what is thought to be a later sentai marking on the tail of the plane in the foreground with the number "03". Note that the number is not only applied on the fuselage side, similarly to the aircraft in the background but it's also applied at the base of the rudder.

Going back to the "Yontan Hien", here's a detail everybody has missed. There is an overpainted/deleted number at the bottom of the rudder. Can you see it now that you know where to look?

So, if you want to build a really accurate "Yontan Hien", you'll need to show the previous 55 Sentai marking AND a number on the rudder bottom as having been overpainted, then apply the 19 Sentai markings.

UPDATE!

Radek sent over three more photos of the numberless 19 Sentai "Hien" with the replacement rudder.

As you can see it has the number "98" on only the starboard wheel cover and in the top photo the location is mentioned as Manila. A very unusual aircraft.

Also, one more photo of he "0" "Yontan Hien".

Thanks a lot Radek.

Update!

The photo below from here, mentions that the location is "Ie Shima airfield Okinawa". Hmmmm...